- 6 minutes ago
Fewer votes may now be needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte. But why was the threshold lowered?
The Senate impeachment court has overturned its earlier interpretation requiring 16 votes for conviction, ruling that the two-thirds requirement will instead be computed based on senator-judges who are legally and factually capable of participating when the final judgment is made.
What prompted the change? What does the new formula mean? And what are the legal arguments surrounding the Senate’s decision?
Beyond the Headlines — Look Deeper. Think Deeper.
The Senate impeachment court has overturned its earlier interpretation requiring 16 votes for conviction, ruling that the two-thirds requirement will instead be computed based on senator-judges who are legally and factually capable of participating when the final judgment is made.
What prompted the change? What does the new formula mean? And what are the legal arguments surrounding the Senate’s decision?
Beyond the Headlines — Look Deeper. Think Deeper.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
01:00Then, everything else.
01:03How many votes does it take to remove a vice president from office?
01:0816 or 14?
01:12Good afternoon and welcome to Beyond the Headlines.
01:14I'm DJ Moises and today's conversation is brought to us by Coffee First.
01:19When the Senate impeachment court opened the trial on July 6 this year, it ruled that conviction required six votes,
01:31two-thirds of all 24 senators.
01:34But on September 23, the impeachment court overturned that interpretation.
01:40It changed the denominator from 24 to 20.
01:46Let's look deeper and think better.
01:49The court ruled that when judgment is rendered, senators who are legally and factually unable to participate may be excluded
02:01from the calculation.
02:03The constitutional requirement of two-thirds remains.
02:08What changed is who counts as all the members of the Senate.
02:13The Constitution says an impeached official cannot be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of
02:24the Senate.
02:24Under the impeachment court's new framework, if only 20 senators are legally and factually capable of participating, two-thirds of
02:3420 is 13.33, rounded up to 14.
02:40This is not merely a story about numbers.
02:44It is a story about constitutional interpretation, due process, and the power of the Senate to determine how the Constitution
02:53applies to an extraordinary proceeding like this.
02:58What exactly did the Senate change?
03:01Why did it change the calculation?
03:04And what does two-thirds of all members really mean?
03:09Let's unpack all these today.
03:12So just like our previous episodes, if there are dissenting views or contrary opinions, feel free to engage with us
03:24in a conversation at the comment section.
03:27And if we happen to read your comments while the episode is ongoing, then our staff here in the studio
03:34will also direct me to a particular comment.
03:38So everybody's opinion is actually welcome.
03:42So just like what I also said in the previous episode, I am not a lawyer.
03:47So this is a viewpoint of an everyday person or an everyday sebuano.
03:53So as mentioned in the intro, let's start with the number from the constitutional principle.
04:01So as mentioned in the intro, the debate was not exactly on the fraction, which is two-thirds.
04:07The debate was focused on the denominator, on how many senators should be considered in the calculation.
04:16So the original interpretation was straightforward.
04:2124 senators, two-thirds of 24, that's 16 votes.
04:26But the new interpretation, says the senators, will only have to include in the denominator those who are legally and
04:36factually able to participate.
04:38So that means na may upat ka-senators who are either detained, currently in hiding, or on sick leave,
04:48then the denominator that will be used instead of 24 will just be 20.
04:54And two-thirds of that is 13.33, rounded up to 14.
04:59Now, I will also have to say that whether we are in favor of the new threshold or the original
05:08interpretation,
05:09there are valid reasons also for each side.
05:13So those supporting the new interpretation, so that means that only 20 senators will be considered,
05:20are actually saying that because these senators are not able to engage and are not physically present when the deliberation
05:28is made,
05:29so why should they be included in the voting that will determine whether an impeached official is going to be
05:36acquitted or convicted.
05:40So they said they did not have any quality participation at all,
05:44so they should be excluded from the actual number of senators who will eventually vote.
05:50And this perspective is also shared by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide because he said that
06:01only senators who are legally and physically qualified to vote will be included in the denominator.
06:09In fact, I'll also have to note that four of the Amici Curie or the Friends of the Court,
06:16and they were either former chief justices or associate justice or an associate justice,
06:23the three of them actually think that 16 should not be fixed.
06:29So that's four out of one.
06:32But there is also a serious constitutional contention why 16 will have to be retained.
06:39So, and this is, by the way, the stand of one of the four in Amici Curie.
06:46And I'm referring to retired Justice Adolfo Ascuna,
06:52because he said that the Constitution does not say two-thirds of members who are present.
06:58So the Constitution did not say that,
07:01that only two-thirds of members who are present.
07:03It actually says two-thirds of all members of the Senate.
07:09And his concern is, if we keep on changing the denominator,
07:14then the stand becomes variable.
07:17That's why he said it should be fixed,
07:19because there's a reason why the Constitution explicitly say
07:24all members of the Senate and not just members who are present.
07:30Now, it's also good to note that two members of the Amici Curie are, in fact,
07:38members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
07:43And they happen to be, interesting enough, on the opposite sides of their interpretation
07:49of what two-thirds of all members of the Senate means.
07:53And I'm referring to former Chief Justice Hilario Davide
07:58and former Associate Justice Adolfo Ascuna.
08:05So they were part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
08:09and they happen to be on the opposite side.
08:12Again, former Justice Davide said it should not be fixed on 16.
08:17And if we go back on his role in the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
08:22he chaired the Committee on Legislative Power.
08:26On the other hand, former Associate Justice Ascuna said it should be 16.
08:33And of the two, in my opinion, he had the most direct role
08:38in drafting the constitutional provision specific to accountability and impeachment.
08:45Because in the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
08:49he was the vice chair of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
08:57So in terms of the interpretation of the Constitution,
09:02and again, I'm not a lawyer.
09:04I'm an everyday Sabuan who is, or everyday Filipino,
09:07who is following the impeachment.
09:10Well, and lawyers can disagree.
09:12It always begins with the words verba legis.
09:16And it tells us, and I will have to read it so that I will not make a mistake,
09:21where the language is clear, we give the words their ordinary meaning.
09:29So again, verba legis actually means, which is the first filter,
09:33if we call it that way when we interpret the Constitution,
09:36where the language is clear, kung klaro siya,
09:39then we give the words their ordinary meaning.
09:43Dili na to siya butangan o other interpretation.
09:47Kung may yung tagbata, bata na.
09:49Kung may yung tagtigulang, tigulang na.
09:51Because there's our clear, distinct words.
09:54And then, kung vague gani ang gigamit na word,
09:58then that's when we move to the other filters,
10:01which is the framer's intent, the purpose of the provision,
10:05and of course, the Constitution as a whole.
10:08Because it actually says that we don't take isolated pieces of the Constitution
10:15and just interpret it on its own, like it's a silo.
10:18So that's how it is.
10:20But again, lawyers can correct me, but these,
10:24ang purpose of the provision, ang framer's intent,
10:29and the Constitution as a whole only applies
10:32when the words that are used are ambiguous.
10:37Meaning, dili isya klaro.
10:39But when it's clear, then it's verba legis.
10:42We stick to its ordinary meaning.
10:45So now let's go back to the debated phrase or words.
10:49All members of the Senate, well, for an everyday person,
10:53and I will have to ask our viewers,
10:55is that a clear phrase or is that ambiguous?
11:00All members of the Senate.
11:03Klaro siya na words or ambiguous siya?
11:06And again, I'm not a lawyer, but in my view, klaro siya.
11:10So, in my view also, verbal legis in this case applies to this one.
11:18All members of the Senate, meaning all 24 members of the Senate.
11:26And that also explains why, as we know,
11:29former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez filed a petition the day after,
11:34on September 24, before the Supreme Court.
11:36So, he asked the court to nullify the September 23 ruling at the impeachment court
11:43and sought a restraining order or preliminary injunction.
11:48His position is because the Senate has 24 members.
11:54And that means two-thirds of all the 24 members means 16 votes.
12:02Well, as of today, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the petition
12:08or granted the requested injunction relief.
12:13So, that's why Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said that,
12:17in effect, whatever was decided or interpreted on September 23 still holds.
12:24There is no TRO, so the impeachment proceedings can continue.
12:30Now, it's also worth noting, if we go back to 2012,
12:36during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona,
12:42the Senate at that time had 23 members instead of 24.
12:49Because that was also the time when then-senator Benigno Aquino,
12:54the third, or eventually became the President Pinoy that we knew.
12:59So, ang 24 members of the Senate, na 23 na lang,
13:04kay na President man ang isa,
13:06and they decided not to replace the 24th, no?
13:11Nga vacated, the vacated seat.
13:13So, 23 siya.
13:14But when they voted for the impeachment of Renato Corona,
13:18they actually remained at 16 votes.
13:22Wala nilagi lower to two-thirds of 23.
13:26They still voted two-thirds of 24.
13:30So, as an everyday Cebuano, as an everyday person,
13:34there is a precedence.
13:35Again, at that time, 24 ka-senators,
13:38na vacate ang isa kay na President,
13:40so 23 na lang,
13:41but when they voted for the impeachment of then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona,
13:50they actually used two-thirds of that 24,
13:54and that is 16.
13:56So, let's see how the Supreme Court will eventually respond to the petition
14:03that was filed by former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez.
14:09It's also interesting to note,
14:12and again, I'm not insinuating anything,
14:14but I'm just also telling the public to continue to monitor this development
14:19because as they say,
14:20ang attention sa Filipinos,
14:24if we base it on viewers and also engagement,
14:28nagkahinay na raba siya as the proceedings continue.
14:31But I would still encourage our viewers to continue monitoring this development
14:36because what's interesting also is,
14:39come November,
14:41two of the 15 incumbent Supreme Court justices will actually retire.
14:48And one of them is Chief Justice,
14:51Chief Justice himself,
14:53that's Chief Justice Alexander Giesmundo.
14:58So, he is retiring.
15:00And as we know,
15:01it is the President who would appoint the new Chief Justice.
15:05Of course,
15:07based on a short list that's being prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council or JBC.
15:13And if we go to the JBC list of justices that were invited by JBC,
15:22five of them are from the incumbent.
15:26And by the way,
15:27this is a tradition
15:32that the five most senior chief justices,
15:37not chief justices,
15:38five most senior associate justices
15:41will be invited by the JBC.
15:44And from this short list,
15:46the President appoints.
15:48So, again,
15:49I'm not insinuating,
15:50I'm not making any conclusion,
15:53but I'm just saying that
15:54this is a part also
15:56that we, the public,
15:57will have to look more closely.
16:00And I trust that whoever are nominated,
16:05because I think the deadline is sometime for them to apply,
16:10I think sometime October 13 or October 15.
16:13And I just pray and trust that whoever will eventually apply for the Chief Justice,
16:19that person will remain impartial.
16:22Because this is a crucial moment also,
16:25not just,
16:26this is not just about the impeachment of the Vice President,
16:29but it's also about the integrity of the separation of the branches
16:33and also the integrity of our Constitution.
16:38So, I hope that this development,
16:41the retirement of two justices,
16:46and one of them is the Chief Justice,
16:48and then the potential nominees or applicants
16:52who will be eventually appointed by the President,
16:56will not influence that decision.
16:58So, when we say influence,
16:59once may i-monitor na ito,
17:00kinsa ni sila ang eventually mo apply,
17:03and then how will they eventually vote on the ruling
17:08about the lowering of the threshold,
17:10or how this development will also delay the response,
17:16of the Supreme Court.
17:18Because pwede mang good na,
17:19murag-gubot na kayo sa ngatanan kumuend ang impeachment
17:22before,
17:25ay hapa mo gawas ang verdict sa Supreme Court.
17:28Daghan na kayo sa gubangon when that happens.
17:32So, as an everyday follower of the proceeding,
17:35it's better that the Supreme Court already decides on this
17:38before the Senate will actually vote,
17:41whether they use 16 or whether they use 14.
17:46Better ko ang decision before that.
17:47And I hope that this retirement
17:49and this development within the Supreme Court
17:51will not delay the decision to after,
17:56because that's also an essential piece.
17:58Now, before we close,
18:01let's also remember that in July 6,
18:03at the very start of the impeachment,
18:06President-Officer Chief Escudero
18:08ruled that 16 votes were required to convict.
18:13Yan ang gisulti in the beginning,
18:15and there was no objection.
18:17No senator actually appealed that choice.
18:20So, it was carried.
18:22And it was just, again,
18:24it was just strange that
18:26in the middle of the trial,
18:28they changed the rules of the game.
18:33So, kung iliken na to ni siya
18:34into a basketball game,
18:37nag-sabot na ta nga,
18:38ang championship is best of seven,
18:41and then nanay nakadaog sa game one,
18:43game two, or game three,
18:44and then somebody just said,
18:45I think it should be game four.
18:46Kutob na lang ta din.
18:47Leto tiwasun ang best of seven.
18:50So, that's not fair.
18:52Or, nanay nidaog sa game one,
18:54game two, game three,
18:55and then may in sila nga,
18:56no, instead of best of seven,
18:58let's do best of nine
18:59in the middle of the game.
19:02And that's exactly how this is playing out, no?
19:06In the beginning,
19:07it was declared that 16 votes,
19:09there was no appeal,
19:10there was no objection,
19:12and then in the middle,
19:1414 na lang daw.
19:15Dili na, 16.
19:16So, this is also, to me,
19:21a question on fairness, no?
19:23How fair is this?
19:25Or, ikaw, estudyante ka,
19:26nagsabot mo nga ang sumakum laude
19:28is only until 1.2,
19:30and then all of a sudden,
19:321.3 na lang daw, no?
19:34Or, all of a sudden,
19:351.1 na lang.
19:37And, you know,
19:38if you're a student and you're vying for honors,
19:40how would you feel about that?
19:42Na all of a sudden,
19:43dili na ka sumakum laude, no?
19:45Or, all of a sudden,
19:47katong walay labot,
19:48sumakum laude,
19:49na-appeal na siya,
19:50kaya gi lower ang threshold to 1.3,
19:52and that's not exactly how it was agreed,
19:54because the agreement initially was 1.2.
19:56So, I'm just stating this analogy
19:58because so that katong mga game players na to
20:01who are watching,
20:01and even students who are watching,
20:03you know,
20:03it's not fair, no?
20:05If we look at it also from that perspective.
20:09And, no matter
20:11ka nang how they would say no,
20:12fairness will be defined,
20:15it's still not fair
20:17because it should be consistently applied
20:20from start to finish,
20:22regardless of who wins
20:25or who loses.
20:26The rule should stay.
20:28Now, the other thing also is,
20:31let's also look at the senators
20:34who found themselves on the wrong side,
20:37no?
20:38Of wrong,
20:39ako na siyang gi-quote-unquote,
20:40side of the political divide.
20:42There was Bato de la Rosa,
20:44Senators Bato de la Rosa,
20:47Rodante Marcoleta,
20:49Jingoy Estrada,
20:51and then Senator Loren Legarda.
20:53We already knew what is happening to them.
20:56And then,
20:57if we look at the broader political group,
21:00si Senator Alan Peter Cayetano
21:02is facing scrutiny and investigation
21:05by the Office of Ombudsman
21:08regarding infrastructure
21:09and reclamation projects in Taguig,
21:13no?
21:13And then,
21:14the Ombudsman also filed charges
21:17against Senators Mark and Camille Villar
21:20for being directors of a water company
21:23in which they were part of
21:24even before they became senators.
21:26Then there's also
21:27Senator Robin Padilla,
21:29who is also facing obstruction
21:31of justice,
21:33a complaint, allegedly,
21:35for helping Senator Bato de la Rosa escape.
21:38And then,
21:39rumors are also circulating,
21:40where these are just rumors,
21:41but it's worth also noting.
21:43Rumors are also,
21:44okay,
21:45this is also how
21:46Bato de la Rosa got himself into,
21:48it's all started with rumors.
21:50Because rumors are also circulating,
21:52there might be an ICC arrest
21:55for Senator Bongo.
21:59And if we look at
22:00the pattern of all these,
22:02it looked like they belong to
22:04one side,
22:05no?
22:05Of the Senate,
22:07the minority.
22:09And,
22:09sorry if I'll,
22:11and so one case
22:11has been filed,
22:12no?
22:13Or investigation
22:13has been started,
22:16no?
22:16Or,
22:16or pronounced,
22:18no?
22:18One after the other.
22:20And if we recall,
22:21sorry if I have to bring this up again,
22:23and if we recall,
22:24there were also questions
22:26about Senators
22:27Joel Villanueva
22:28and also Senators
22:30Cheese Escudero,
22:31no?
22:32And,
22:33and for some reason,
22:36the investigation,
22:37quote unquote,
22:38or cases against them,
22:40did not also
22:41progress.
22:42And incidentally,
22:43these were the two Senators
22:45who moved
22:45to the new
22:47majority.
22:48So,
22:49the question here actually
22:50is,
22:51I'm not saying,
22:51we can conclude already,
22:53but
22:54as an everyday person
22:56and as our viewers
22:56are watching,
22:57when can we say
22:58that a pattern
23:00is being established?
23:01No?
23:02Because
23:02that's how we look
23:04at things,
23:05man said,
23:05no?
23:05we make our
23:06conclusions
23:07looking at the pattern
23:09and
23:09is this pattern
23:12not
23:13worth
23:14looking more closely?
23:15Nga nung
23:16ang sapikas
23:17mo'y daghag
23:18kaso
23:18or investigation
23:19and then
23:20naiduha
23:21nga napoy
23:22allegations.
23:23Both are allegations
23:24actually,
23:24ang duha allegations
23:25and for some reason
23:26because they are now
23:27on the majority,
23:28wala sadgay
23:29kaso nga
23:29na file
23:30or any movement
23:31of the investigation
23:33on thy side.
23:34So,
23:35some people
23:35are even saying
23:36na
23:36murag di ginilihukon
23:38ang saduhal.
23:39These are
23:39comments from other people
23:41ha?
23:41Di ginilihukon
23:42because
23:42they actually
23:43each had
23:44what they say
23:45the sword
23:46of Damocles.
23:48Kanang nagbitay
23:49na sword ba?
23:50Whatever happens,
23:52because the sword
23:53of Damocles
23:54is actually
23:54held by
23:55a thread
23:56as thin
23:57as a hair.
23:59Kung sa'y
23:59mga lihuk nila
24:00munaag na po
24:00itong sword
24:01and it will
24:01struck them.
24:02That's how
24:03the joke
24:03sometimes would
24:04come because
24:04wala man sa'y
24:05pronouncement.
24:05Wala lay
24:06investigation
24:07nga niy
24:08happen.
24:08So,
24:08maybe it's
24:09a sword
24:09hanging
24:09on their
24:11head.
24:11And I
24:11think
24:12that's also
24:13what some
24:14people are
24:15also
24:15naka-observe.
24:17Maybe
24:18that's also
24:18what
24:19Senator Mark
24:19Villar did.
24:21Katong ni
24:24abstain siya
24:25from voting
24:25about the
24:26change
24:26and then
24:27eventually
24:27ni vote siya
24:28in favor
24:29of lowering
24:30of the
24:30threshold.
24:31So,
24:33Basin,
24:35he also
24:35felt the
24:37Villar
24:37siblings are
24:39also feeling
24:39the pressure
24:40of the
24:42investigation
24:42and the
24:43cases that
24:44are also
24:44said to be
24:45filed against
24:46them.
24:47So,
24:47again,
24:48going back
24:48to this,
24:49this is not
24:50a conclusion
24:50but this is
24:51more of a
24:52question.
24:52When can
24:52we say
24:53that there
24:54truly is a
24:54pattern
24:55of harassment
24:57and when
24:58can we
24:58say
24:58coincidence
25:01because
25:01it can
25:02be a
25:03coincidence
25:03but it
25:05can also
25:05be a
25:06pattern.
25:07These are
25:08also worth
25:09looking
25:10closely
25:11because
25:11the
25:12Senators
25:13or the
25:13impeachment,
25:14while this
25:15is a
25:15constitutional
25:16process,
25:17let's not
25:17pretend that
25:18this is
25:18also
25:19political.
25:20Our
25:20experts
25:21would say
25:21that.
25:22So,
25:22these
25:22Senators,
25:23while they
25:23are sifting
25:24through the
25:25evidences
25:25and the
25:26proceedings,
25:26but they
25:27are not
25:27operating
25:28on a
25:28political
25:29vacuum.
25:30So,
25:31these are
25:31also factors
25:32that are
25:33worth
25:33looking
25:34more closely.
25:35So,
25:36again,
25:36before we
25:37close,
25:37I would
25:38encourage
25:38our
25:39everyday
25:39Sabonis
25:40and
25:40everyday
25:40Filipinos
25:41to continue
25:41follow the
25:42impeachment.
25:44Views
25:44would say
25:45nga nagkanaog
25:45ng interest
25:46but let's
25:47continue to
25:47keep our
25:48interest
25:48high so
25:49that we
25:50would be
25:50in a
25:50better
25:51position
25:51to
25:52actually
25:52decide
25:53the
25:53fairness
25:54or the
25:54unfairness
25:55of the
25:56procedure
25:56and whether
25:56it's
25:57truly
25:57aligned
25:58to the
25:59constitution
25:59or this
26:00is becoming
26:00more of a
26:01political
26:01exercise.
26:02And the
26:03best way
26:03for us
26:04to be
26:04able to
26:04have an
26:05objective
26:05opinion
26:05is for
26:06us to
26:06follow the
26:07proceedings
26:07and continue
26:09also to
26:09drop your
26:09comments
26:10and your
26:10questions
26:11just in
26:11case
26:12and we
26:12will
26:12engage
26:13on
26:14what we
26:15think
26:15are
26:15reasonable
26:15comments
26:16or
26:16reasonable
26:17questions.
26:18Because at
26:19the end
26:19of the
26:20day,
26:20this impeachment
26:22trial is
26:23bigger than
26:24Vice
26:24President
26:25Sara
26:25Duterte.
26:26It is
26:26bigger than
26:28the senators
26:28who will
26:29cast their
26:30votes.
26:30And it is
26:31even bigger
26:32than the
26:32politics of
26:332028.
26:35This is
26:36about whether
26:36we can
26:37trust the
26:38institution
26:39entrusted
26:40with the
26:41Constitution.
26:43So I'm
26:44DJ
26:44Moise.
26:45Shout out
26:45to
26:45Coffee
26:46First
26:46for
26:46supporting
26:46conversations
26:47that
26:47matter.
26:48This is
26:49Beyond the
26:49Headlines.
26:50Let's
26:50look deeper
26:51and think
26:51better.
26:52Have a
26:53good
26:53afternoon.
26:53coffee
26:55coffee
26:58It starts
27:00with a
27:00fresh
27:01shot
27:01of
27:01espresso.
27:03Bold,
27:04rich,
27:05pulled
27:06just
27:06right.
27:08Then
27:09comes
27:10the
27:10milk,
27:10steamed
27:11smooth,
27:12creamy,
27:13and balanced.
27:14The
27:14perfect
27:15latte
27:15is not
27:16brushed.
27:17It is
27:17crafted
27:18one cup
27:19at a
27:20time.
27:21Your
27:21perfect
27:21latte
27:22is
27:22ready.
27:23Coffee
27:23first,
27:25then
27:25everything
27:26else.
27:52tea
27:54tea
27:56is
27:57day
27:58day
27:58two
27:59two
27:59two